06/06/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

concrete would cause more drainage problems. One neighbor, not identified, stated that the Army Corp. of Engineers had declared that 5 acres were wetlands, the developers private consultant had indicated one acre. Mr. Durkin was concerned about the increase in density, and believed that when a person purchases property, he should be aware of what he can do, and believed that this request had a substantial number of variances. Mr. Reagau reiterated the request for a fence, and is concemed about children crossing Brookpark Road. He would prefer cluster homes, rather than either the duplexes or apartments. Mr. Troibner is opposed to either duplexes or apartments because of traffic beiug added to the intersection of Brookpark and Clague Road and also on Mastic Road which seems to be a super highway by itself. He is directly across from one of the driveways and would be concerned about his children's safety. He would prefer single family homes that did not require variances, he was opposed to any development that would increase the population of the area two or three fold. He had presented a statement during the discussion of the last proposal, which advised that his house would be devalued with that development. Mrs. Nicola is also concerned about properiy v.alues, and the problems with rental units since she believed that renters would not treat the property as they would their own. She was also concerned about increased crime. Mr. and Mrs. Reale pointed out that Mr. Bower's property would be 8 feet from their side door. Mr. Reale stated that when he lived at Butternut Ridge Apartments, where he paid $1,250 per month, he kept getting notes from the owners advising residents not to answer their doors and to lock up all valuables because of crime. He stated that there was ketchup etc., all over the walls. He implored that the developer build something that the neighbors really wanted, not rental property. He questioned the $850.00 rental that Mr. Bower mentioned at the last meeting, since he paid more and repeated that renters would damage the property. He stated that he thought that the board had made up its mind. Chairman Gomersall responded that the members did not have their minds made up. Mr. Reale reiterated several times that he was "fighting for his life" and did not want to be forced to move. Mr. Paton thanked Mr. Bower for taking care of the maintenance problems that he mentioned at the last meeting, and also advised that he was concemed about safety of his children and about his property values if this goes through. Mrs. Lynn objects to reducing the setback to 15 feet and noted that the residents abutting this property-used their deep back yards. She, too, was concerned about the increased density and asked that these variances not be granted. Mr. Lynn was concerned about drainage since all the properties have drainage ditches that they all tie into a common ditch on Brookpark Road. He would like the ditche's either left open and culverts put in and made deeper to allow for better drainage. Mr. Gomersall questioned ifhe wauted to allow the developer on his property to clean his ditch out. Mr. Bower advised that there is off site drainage that goes through their property and that they will make provisions for that when they submit their engineering drawings to the city. Mr. Lynn stated that all the property owners are concerned about setbacks and would like a board on board fence; and he is also concemed about traffic, since this will cause traffic problem for the existing residents and Mr. Bower's renters. He noted that there was a blind curve on Shepherd's Hill and the drive is directly across from it. He was worried about lights shining onto his property and properiy values being decreased. He is concerned that if children come into his yard, he will have to chain his dogs because he will be liable. Law Director Gareau stated he would not be liable unless he willfully ensnared or entrapped them. He had asked Mr. Bower previously to change his proposal to single family (the audience indicated its agreement), but Mr. Bower did not believe it was feasible. He asked that Mr. Bower talk to the neighbors. Since phase four on the western end is to be developed first and that is the area where State of Ohio may add an off-ramp, he asked that it not be built first, so the State would not have to buy the units as well as the land. The members did not believe this was a feasible argument since this is Mr. Bower's property to use as he sees fit, and it is not definite that the ramp will ever be built. He again asked that the property be developed as single family. Mr. Koberna responded that this property was zoned Multi Family. Mr. Hollis stated that there would only be 15 feet from one of the units to his property line with no fencing and reiterated that all the neighbors use their back yards. He objected to having rental property in this neighborhood with the type of homes that are there now and believed that 8